DCT

2:25-cv-02860

Tiny Twinkle Inc v. Target Brands Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-02860, D. Ariz., 08/08/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper for Target Brands, Inc. based on its operation of approximately 46 retail stores constituting a regular and established place of business within the district, along with alleged sales of the accused product in Arizona. Venue over Happy Arts & Crafts Co., Ltd. is asserted on the basis that it is a foreign corporation, which may be sued in any judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ “Floral Ruffle Bib” infringes a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a baby bib.
  • Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer goods sector, specifically focusing on the ornamental design of baby products.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant Target with notice of the alleged infringement via a cease and desist letter dated September 23, 2024, nearly a year before filing suit. This pre-suit notice is cited as a basis for the willfulness allegation.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2019-05-02 '919 Patent Priority Date
2021-07-06 U.S. Patent No. D923,919 Issues
2024-09-23 Plaintiff sends cease and desist letter to Defendant Target
2025-08-08 Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Design Patent No. D923,919 - "BIB"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D923,919, titled "BIB", issued on July 6, 2021.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the ornamental, non-functional appearance of an article of manufacture. The complaint suggests the patent was sought to protect Plaintiff's "investment in innovation" and "contributions in the field of baby products." (Compl. ¶¶ 10, 11).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a bib. The visual characteristics of the design, shown in solid lines in the patent's figures, include the overall shape of the bib's body, ruffled shoulder sleeves, a specific neckline configuration, and a front pocket with two fasteners. (’919 Patent, Figs. 1-8). The patent explicitly disclaims features shown in broken lines as not being part of the claimed design. (’919 Patent, col. 2:37-43).
  • Technical Importance: In the market for consumer goods like baby products, a unique and aesthetically pleasing ornamental design can be a significant product differentiator.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a bib, as shown and described." (’919 Patent, col. 1:57-58).
  • The scope of this claim is defined by the visual appearance of the bib as depicted in the solid-line drawings of the patent. Key ornamental features include:
    • The overall vest-like shape and proportions of the bib.
    • The presence and appearance of ruffled, or "flutter," sleeves on the shoulders.
    • The shape of the neck opening and shoulder fastening mechanism.
    • The configuration of the front pocket and its fasteners.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused product is the "Short Sleeve Bib – Floral – Cloud Island™," also referred to as the "Floral Ruffle Bib." (Compl. ¶1).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused product is a baby bib allegedly manufactured by Defendant Happy Arts & Crafts and sold in the United States by Defendant Target. (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 23). The complaint alleges that the overall visual appearance of this bib is "substantially similar" to the design claimed in the '919 Patent. (Compl. p. 5:1-2). The complaint includes several photographic exhibits to support this allegation, such as one showing a perspective view of the accused bib for comparison with a patent figure. (Compl. p. 5). Another visual comparison contrasts the front view of the accused bib with FIG. 3 of the patent. (Compl. p. 6).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

For design patents, infringement is determined by the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. The complaint alleges that the overall visual appearance of the accused Floral Ruffle Bib is substantially similar to the design claimed in the '919 Patent. (Compl. p. 5:1-2).

The complaint provides extensive side-by-side visual comparisons to support its infringement theory, juxtaposing figures from the '919 Patent with photographs of the accused product from multiple angles. (Compl. pp. 5-8). For example, the complaint compares FIG. 2 of the '919 Patent with a rear-view photograph of the accused bib to highlight similarities in the back design and fastening area. (Compl. p. 6). A further comparison is made between the top views of the patented design and the accused product. (Compl. p. 8).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Overall Visual Impression: The central dispute will be whether the accused bib's design is "substantially the same" as the patented design. This analysis considers the design as a whole.
  • Scope Questions: A question for the fact-finder may be what weight to give the floral surface pattern on the accused bib, a feature not present in the patented design which is claimed only as to shape and configuration. The defense may argue this pattern creates a different overall visual impression, while the plaintiff may argue it is mere surface ornamentation that does not detract from the similarity of the underlying claimed design.
  • Technical Questions: The court may need to consider whether any minor differences in the proportions, the cut of the neckline, or the shape of the ruffles between the accused product and the patent drawings are significant enough to create a distinct overall visual appearance in the eyes of an ordinary observer.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, traditional claim construction focusing on textual terms is rare. The "claim" is understood to be the design itself, as depicted in the patent's drawings. The scope of the claim is defined by the solid lines in the figures. Practitioners will focus on the visual impression created by the drawings as a whole, rather than on construing specific terms. The '919 Patent includes multiple embodiments where certain features (like the pocket) are shown in broken lines, indicating they are not part of the design in that particular embodiment. (’919 Patent, Figs. 25-48). This may raise questions about the core ornamental concepts protected by the patent and which features are central to its overall visual impression.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendants have contributed to and/or actively induced infringement. (Compl. ¶24). The factual basis appears to be the alleged distribution agreement between Happy Arts (manufacturer) and Target (retailer), which may be argued to show Happy Arts’ intent for Target to commit the infringing act of selling the accused bibs in the U.S. (Compl. ¶18).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendants' continued infringing activities after receiving a cease and desist letter on September 23, 2024. (Compl. ¶¶ 20, 28). This letter allegedly provided Defendants with actual knowledge of the '919 Patent and their alleged infringement prior to the lawsuit's filing.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A central issue will be the impact of unclaimed features: in the eyes of an ordinary observer, does the floral surface pattern on the accused bib create a sufficiently distinct overall visual impression to differentiate it from the un-patterned shape and configuration claimed in the '919 Patent?
  • The case will also turn on a question of visual similarity: are any minor differences in the proportions or cut of the accused bib's ruffles, neckline, and pocket sufficient to avoid infringement, or are they trivial distinctions that do not alter the substantially similar overall appearance when compared to the patented design?